Respectfully submitted by Lawrence E. Rafferty (rafflaw)-Guest Blogger
I have seen the suggestion before that Welfare recipients need to be drug tested to make sure that taxpayers are not paying for the drug habits of those evil poor people. I have even seen relatives allude to it in messages on social media sites and I have witnessed friends championing the idea in personal emails. I always wondered why some people think that the poor must be abusing the state and federal aid programs and therefore must have drug tests to insure that the taxpayers money is not being wasted. While I agree that taxpayers money should not be wasted, I have not seen any benefit from forcing people to be drug tested before they receive their aid payments.
The State of Florida tried this from 1999 to 2001 and reintroduced it in 2011. The Florida plan was subsequently struck down by the courts because there was no evidence that poor people abused drugs more often than their wealthier counterparts. “The state of Florida passed an almost identical testing procedure that ran from 1999 to 2001 and was reintroduced in July of 2011 that was struck down by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta the following month, citing the fact: ‘ “there is nothing inherent to the condition of being impoverished that supports the conclusion that there is a `concrete danger’ that impoverished individuals are prone to drug use.” ‘ Crooks and Liars Does it surprise you that it took the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals before this expensive and intrusive process was ended in Florida?
The Florida experience proved to be a costly waste of taxpayers money according to the Tampa Tribune. “The Tampa Tribune investigated the results of those July 2011 drug tests and found that “96 percent proved to be drug free”, another 2 percent never bothering to complete the lengthy application process, and 2 percent actually failing drug testing. At an average cost of $30 per test, the state was hemorrhaging tax dollars at a rate of “$28,800-$43,200 monthly”… FAR out pacing the supposed “savings” from preventing drug-abusers from gaming the system to buy drugs.” Crooks and Liars The failure of this idea in Florida did not prevent or dissuade the Texas State Senate from unanimously passing an even more draconian plan to screen and drug test welfare recipients.
“On Wednesday, the Texas State legislature, currently composed of 19 Republicans and 12 Democrats, unanimously passed Senate Bill 11, which mandates that every Texan applying for food assistance through the TANF (Texas Assistance for Needy Families) program, submit to an undefined “screening process” and possible drug test before receiving benefits if the screener finds “good cause” to even suspect that person is… or is likely to… abuse any “controlled substance” — despite the fact that there is no evidence at all that people seeking assistance are more likely to do drugs.
According to the bill’s author, Sen. Jane Nelson (R-Flower Mound), the purpose of the bill: ‘ “It ensures that TANF, formerly known as welfare, supports its core purpose of helping families to achieve self-sufficiency,” said Nelson, as she introduced the bill. “We found common ground to support a plan that makes sure state resources aren’t used to support a drug habit while at the same time making sure children receiving benefit in a productive environment.” ‘ Crooks and Liars
I can only assume that the venerable Texas State Senators failed to read about the experience this type of plan had in Florida or merely discounted the facts available to them. Is there a reason why politicians of all stripes jump on the bandwagon that claims the poor and needy are just lazy and may even be on illegal drugs and therefore do not deserve the help of their fellow citizens? These same Texas Senators ignored the Houston Chronicle which published an article critical of SB11 and other proposed bills designed to root out those drug abusing poor people out of their assistance programs.
“Four times during last week’s House Human Services Committee meeting, Rep. Scott Turner asked whether Texas has a problem with parents diverting assistance dollars for food and children to buy drugs. Agency officials could tell the Frisco Republican only that they do not test recipients, and few people lose their benefits because of drug convictions or tips that can be corroborated. ” Houston Chronicle
The Chronicle discussed a similar plan in Michigan that was struck down by a State court for being unconstitutional and the plan in Florida discussed above. According to the Chronicle there are seven other states with similar drug testing of welfare recipients programs. ” Seven states have enacted similar measures – all but two require risk screening before drug testing – and another 29 states are considering legislation this year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Three Texas bills propose testing some applicants for state unemployment benefits rather than TANF applicants.” Houston Chronicle
Just where does this pervasive fear that the unemployed or impoverished are stealing from the public in order to support their drug habits? Does this relate to the old “welfare queen” meme? Is it related to the attempt by some state legislatures to pass voter ID laws to prevent non-existent voter fraud?
As usual, it seems that the politicians are unfazed by the fact that the poor do not use drugs any more than the middle class or the wealthy. Growing up my family received Veterans benefits and Social Security benefits that kept us from ending up on the street. Today, these onerous screening and drug testing programs would have forced my Mother to be tested before she could receive her check which paid for the housing and food for herself and her 5 young children. Remind me again, why is this a good idea?
Additional References: ACLU;
**Elaine M. 1, April 14, 2013 at 7:58 pm
Shannon
1, April 14, 2013 at 5:57 pm
When you get a job you have to be drug tested so why is there such a problem drug testing for public assistance or unemployment benefits.
*****
Not all employers require prospective employees to be drug tested. My husband never required his employees to be drug tested.
**
Most drug test at large are violations of peoples constitutional rights.
“We The People” are not Slaves, we’re the Phk’n Owners, but very few even respect their position as such & behave as slaves to the authoritarian Fascist now running things.
Drug testing of Judges, Polecats, Police, Airline pilots, etc. thats a different issue.
And notice the effects of “Brainwashing” “We the People” into believe we must expose our junk to the “”Govt Authority”” for their inspection. (Thanks Ronnie Raygun)
Ya Right sure! Screw them, let them bow and kiss the Queens balls!
‘Missing In Action’: Congress Ignores America’s Poverty Crisis
By Jennifer bendery
Posted: 04/08/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/08/congress-poverty_n_3000459.html
Excerpt:
WASHINGTON — At a time when Republicans on Capitol Hill are expressing outrage over canceled White House tours, something more deserving of outrage is taking place: tens of millions of the nation’s most vulnerable are taking hits on all sides. The nation’s poverty rate is frozen at a high of 15 percent. And lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, for the most part, aren’t even talking about it.
“Missing in action,” Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-Ohio), the chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, said of Congress’ record on poverty.
It has been a topic of discussion among Washington lawmakers in fleeting moments. Language about making poverty a national priority found its way into the Democratic Party platform last year and into President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address in February. Democrats tucked a line into their budget proposals this year calling for a strategy to cut poverty in half in 10 years.
Yet the issue has all but disappeared from the legislative agenda in Congress as lawmakers focus squarely on deficit reduction. Obama, too, has been largely silent on the issue, and has even proposed cutting Social Security — a key tool for combating poverty. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a leading voice for the poor in the Senate, has fumed that Obama is caving to Republicans on the issue at the expense of “millions of working people, seniors, disabled veterans, those who have lost a loved one in combat, and women.”
The statistics are staggering. According to the Census Bureau, the nation’s poverty rate is at its highest level in decades. More than 46 million people — one in seven Americans — are living below the poverty line, 16.4 million of them children. Another 30 million Americans are just a lost job or serious illness away from joining them. And in the last six years alone, more than 20 million people have joined the ranks of those relying on food stamps to get by.
So the person receiving assistance fails the drug test. What happens?
If there are children involved will they no longer have food or clothing?
Does the state put the children in foster care? Will the user be jailed or turned out on the street. What programs will be available for the complications that arise from failed tests.
PS. what are the stated penalties for a failed test?
If the govt did away with govt welfare tomorrow Walmart, Monsanto, JP Morgan, farmers/ranchers,etc., would all go broke the next day.
If the govt illegally starts drug testing of people applying for welfare the govt will need to drug test everyone/politicians/generals/police/firemen/teachers,corporate shareholders,nation states & their entire population wishing US aid, etc.
Mike S.,
One thing politicians–both Democrats and Republicans–and members of the MSM don’t want to address is the issue of poverty in this country.
Shannon
1, April 14, 2013 at 5:57 pm
When you get a job you have to be drug tested so why is there such a problem drug testing for public assistance or unemployment benefits.
*****
Not all employers require prospective employees to be drug tested. My husband never required his employees to be drug tested.
sb? “should be”. Sabots are the wooden shoes that early industrial laborers would wear and throw into the gears of the machines they worked at to stop them. Those early laborites were some serious cats. It is the root of “sabotage”. You knew that I’m betting, it was the “sb” that threw you. I have seen that in the corrections thread but context, and the proper use of quotation marks, is everything. 🙂 Sorry.
Lotta,
I am guessing that is not Spanish! 🙂
sabat sb sabot.
Mike S: “Surprisingly for the powers that be when I produced a budget for the program it was far too expensive to implement.”
**
You ol’ sabat slinger you; did it squeal- the ‘machine’ as it ground to a halt, did it squeal? 🙂 Well done.
LK,
The beauty of it was the Deputy Commissioner had to sell the idea to the City Office of Management and Budget. All I had to do at that meeting was to attest to the factual basis of my numbers. Since it was known that I was a psychotherapist with a private practice there was no one there who could dispute my mental health costs. Drug testing was very expensive back then and I got the lead poisoning costs from a friend in the City Department of Health. The thing that I loved about Civil Service was that you could follow your comscience. My problem was I didn’t kiss ass or pullpunches, so I had to work hard and be good to succeed. In my way I did and I’m proud of it.
Of course you do Nick, you’re one of those freedom loving, small government, less regulation Libertarian/Randian Independents. 🙂
Great recollection Mike.
In the early 1990’s when family homelessness was a big issue and NYC was unable to cope with it and being dunned by various lawsuits by various advocates I was called to an important meeting. I was the Director of Budget Preparation for the Adult Services Administration Division, which administered all the city Homeless Shelters for both individuals and families. My job was essentially to turn vague budget proposals into tangible programs that were completely developed including staffing and all expenses.
The meeting was led by a representative from the Mayor’s Office, a heavy hitter, and consisted of various the various Commissioner’s responsible for the Shelter System and me who was to do the tangible work. The Mayor’s representative said that the idea was to have each and every family who came into the Shelter System looking for help tested for Mental Health Issues, Drug Dependency and all children tested for lead poisoning. It was met with general approval by the powers that be being they were political appointees, but I was appalled. I couldn’t fathom the purpose since there was no plan to provide mental health services if the tests disclosed need, the same was true of drug dependency and finally not all children needed to undergo lead poisoning tests. Finally, after all the sycophancy I asked the Mayor’s guy” What is the purpose of these tests?” He smirked as he said that they would be so onerous it would discourage families from applying and thus alleviate the strain on the Family Shelter System that was getting the City battered in court. I held my tongue and went back to do my budget work. Surprisingly for the powers that be when I produced a budget for the program it was far too expensive to implement.
When I first heard about the Drug Testing of Welfare Recipients proposal I thought back to that meeting.
I believe all commenters in this forum should be required to submit to random drug testing.
Justice Holmes,
I am guessing that more than a few in Congress would flunk that test.
When we start testing members of congress, who benefit greatly from government benefits and CEOs of big corporations who also benefit greatly from government benefits and banksters for a start, I discuss whether poor people should be drug tested.
I am not very well informed in this part of the law but:
How about this for consideration: There are individuals who receive social security disability benefits due to drug and/or alcohol condition. So do we violate the Americans with Disabilities act by denying this disabled person access to government programs and benefits due to his disability?
Drug testing for other than safety reasons is an intrusion on the person and should be abolished. On the job performance should be based on, well, job performance. If you can do the job, good. If not, improve or find something else. What one does on one’s own time is no one else’s business. Not being hired b/c you had a poppy seed baggle for breakfast? or smoking a joint last week?
As to welfare benefits, as you say, poor people applying are no more likely to be illegal drug users than any other group, actually I would expect less likely. Habitual users who belong in a rehab or hospital have trouble focusing enough to get through all the hoops put in their way.
When you get a job you have to be drug tested so why is there such a problem drug testing for public assistance or unemployment benefits. I work in affordable housing and I see a lot of abuse, more than the average person does. We have residents who pay $1.00/month for rent for a 2-bedroom townhouse with all utilities included, this resident is in and out of jail all the time for drugs. I also left out that she receives $450/month in food benefits from the state. I see a problem with this! If I have to be drug tested for the money that I earn than the people who are getting money for free needs to be drug tested also. That is only one example there are so many more. Unemployment is also a problem, someone gets unemployment because they cannot get a job, well did you ever think that it is because they cannot pass a drug test….Not all people who are on public assistants is abusing the system, but there are a lot of people out there that are. Maybe if we clean up the abusers than there will be more money for the ones that really need the help!!
We should have drug tested banksters before they got bailed out. They got a lot more money from the government than any welfare recipients.